Shajahan v. State of Kerala

B. A. No. 2358 of 2024 -1- # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2358 OF 2024 ``` ``` Crime no.72/2024 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SHAJAHAN AGED 40 YEARS S/O THAJUDEEN, RAJEENA MANZIL, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON.P.O., PERINAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691511 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM SHAHIN BADUSHA REMIN RAJAN ARTHUR B. GEORGE E.B.THAJUDDEEN MIDHUN MOHAN ABDUL SAMAD P.B. SARATH SASI ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PREOSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B. A. No. 2358 of 2024 -2- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2024 The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No. 72 of 2024 of the Kundara Police Station, Kollam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2024. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution allegation is that: on 10.01.2024, at around 23:30 hours, the accused out of his previous animosity towards the brother of the de facto complainant named Rasheed and with an intention to commit his murder, stabbed Rasheed below his left armpit with a knife and caused grievous injuries to him. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri. Mohammed Aslam P. A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, learned Senior Public Prosecutor. B. A. No. 2358 of 2024 -3- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offences under Sections 307 and 326 will not be attracted. The said offences have been deliberately incorporated by the Investigating Officer to deny bail to the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.01.2024, which is 75 days, the investigation of the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Moreover, the petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner caused grievous injuries to the de facto complainant. She made available the accident register - cum - wound certificate dated 11.01.2024 of the de facto complainant to substantiate the nature of the injuries suffered by him. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the investigation in the B. A. No. 2358 of 2024 -4- case is complete, the recovery has been effected and the final report has been laid before the jurisdictional court on 23.03.2024. She also stated that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 6. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** , [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 7. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.** , [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. B. A. No. 2358 of 2024 -5- 8. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. On anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.01.2024, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, the investigation of the case is complete and the final report has been laid on 23.03.2024, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. 10. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties B. A. No. 2358 of 2024 -6- each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned - above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the B. A. No. 2358 of 2024 -7- application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law; (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below; (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT** . **of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]** **Sd/C. S. DIAS JUDGE** Eb B. A. No. 2358 of 2024 -8- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2358/2024`** |**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**|**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**| |---|---| |**`Annexure A1`**|**`CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR NO 72 OF 2024`**| ||**`DATED 11-01-2024 IN THE FILES OF KUNDARA`**| ||**`POLICE STATION`**| |**`Annexure A2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C`**| ||**`398/2024 DATED 12-03-2024`**|